Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
for only 700 billion dollars a year the entire US Military IS defending the First
that's who
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 8, 2014 - 06:06pm PT
|
God, I go away for a few days of climbing and I totally lose track of the thread (pun intended).
Tvash wrote this:
Reagan didn't hold a candle to Eisenhower.
The Gipper did tremendous, long term damage to this country in the following ways:
He really pumped up the volume $$$ on Nixon's Drug War. 42 years, 37 M arrests, and a trillion dollars later - we got nothin' but a prison nation, hundreds of thousands of dead, a nation that takes more drugs than ever.
Trickle down. Welcome to 'income disparity is OK!'. Nuff said there.
The rise of the power of the Moral Majority - our most strident domestic enemy of civil rights.
Regulation? What's that?
Military spending. WOW.
The deficit. HEY BIG SPENDER!
That he was arguably better than today's raft of conservative buffoons, religious kooks, and asset strippers, and obstructionists isn't saying much.
Dude, I don't know you and I don't recall seeing you on Supertopo before, but you got my attention.
Spot on, perfect analysis. Succinct and well written too.
I'll be reading more of your comments.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Haha. It would have been a much more laudable post if he'd remembered the significance of Reagans big tax cut that accompanied that spending increase. Bonus points for utilizing the term "Borrow and spend republicans" (vs the classic term "tax and spend democrats"). Full on Voodoo economics. Spend more, bring in less. Clinton had to work to get it straightened out and near balance. Out militarism, which is worse now in some regards, is very very costly.
Still pretty good words, you can give the man his portaledge now for winning best post of the afternoon.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Originalism seeks only to preserve the original intent of the authors based on their writings and events of the time. It is a narrow interpretive approach that avoids, rather than indulges in sweeping generalities like 'principles upon which this nation was founded', which are, invariably, wholly modern fabrications created for electoral purposes.
Again, pretty far from the mark.
Earlier, you actually made my case about states looking to the feds. The fact is that laws get passed at the state level (like Texas) but then face challenges... where? not in State courts but in Federal courts, which then so often lead to the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS ultimately decides whether the the law is a states' rights issue by even deciding whether or not to hear the case. When they hear the case and render a judgment, they do take the issue out of the hands of the states, not only the state in which the law was originally passed.
So, my point was not that the fed ORIGINATE all these laws, which is what you quite clearly (for some reason) took me to be saying. My point is that the SCOTUS is actually the most powerful body on Earth, and that body decides what is "reality" on a vastly sweeping scale. If you don't believe that, then you are apparently able to process only very simple causal chains.
Regarding originalism, you clearly still do not understand what you are saying. Let's try this approach.
Without reference to ANY "original intent" (because you reject originalism in toto), please interpret and define for me the following terms:
* militia
* the people
* the states
* powers
* rights
And I could go on and on. But that will suffice for now. The Constitution is incoherent without reference to these terms, so please let me know what they all MEAN, and that without ANY reference to "originalism."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Trickle down. Welcome to 'income disparity is OK!'. Nuff said there.
Again, I could go on and on regarding your politicized post, but let's settle for just this one point. (BTW: I do totally agree with you about the utterly failed war on drugs.)
Income disparity IS ok! Like opinions, it is NOT the case that everybody's job is worth the same amount. Like opinions, all jobs (and the value of them, hence their income) are not equal!
The point you WANT to make about trickle-down economics is that it doesn't work. But you DON'T effectively make that point by referencing "income disparity," as though that is a bad thing and shouldn't exist. Income disparity SHOULD exist, and it is a necessary consequence of the fact that, like opinions, not all jobs are of equal value.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
**please interpret and define for me the following terms:
* militia
* the people
* the states
* powers
* rights**
No.
With regards to income disparity - the remark obviously connotes our current, disturbing condition and trajectory - you know, the one that's been front page news in recent years. I should have said wealth disparity, perhaps - but the two have become synonymous as references to this problem from copious usage.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 8, 2014 - 09:16pm PT
|
Income disparity IS ok! Like opinions, it is NOT the case that everybody's job is worth the same amount. Like opinions, all jobs (and the value of them, hence their income) are not equal!
The point you WANT to make about trickle-down economics is that it doesn't work. But you DON'T effectively make that point by referencing "income disparity," as though that is a bad thing and shouldn't exist. Income disparity SHOULD exist, and it is a necessary consequence of the fact that, like opinions, not all jobs are of equal value.
Yeah, duh.
Actually, trickle-down economics has come to be a catch-word for: income disparity without a level playing field.
His obvious point is that the ideals of equal opportunity and equal burdens (like taxes and other incidents of citizenship) started to erode badly in the 1980s. That erosion continues now due to the efforts of the very rich and of the kool-aid sipping, Faux news-brainwashed, wing-nuts who are controlled by fear-mongering (a few of whom post here).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I have certain guarantees by virtue of being a member of a given society. It is an inalienable guarantee. I need not "earn" it and it is mine regardless of who I am.
You have not answered anything here. In fact, you have only pushed the question back one level, while simultaneously helping yourself to another "definition" that is grounded in that hoary, old, "bad" originalism: "inalienable." Worse, that term is not even compatible with your first sentence. So, let's get clear on what you really said, piece by piece.
First, if your rights attach to you "by virtue of being a member of a given society," then you believe that rights are derivative rather than inalienable (and I'm entitled to use that term, while you are not). You believe that if you went to some other society, you might have entirely different rights, such as, perhaps, you would NOT have the right to not be murdered (your example).
Second, your bit about "earning" utterly fails to explicate. You clearly want to differentiate between inalienable and derivative rights (which is an obviously needed distinction), but then you switch back and forth between them willy-nilly. To whit: you use your right to life as an example, which would be an inalienable right, but your first sentence talks about rights that are derived from the society in which you live.
Third, you attempt makes no mention of the most fundamental distinction in rights: negative vs. positive. Your example, the right to life, is referenced as a negative right: the right to not be murdered, and that is absolutely correct. But you clearly conflate negative and positive rights, just as you conflate inalienable and derivative rights. Which of these combinations do you mean when you talk about "rights?" And, more importantly, which of these combinations does the Constitution reference when IT talks about rights?
So, you still have a LONG row to hoe in order to account for Constitutional rights without reference to ANY "originalism."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
His obvious point is that the ideals of equal opportunity and equal burdens (like taxes and other incidents of citizenship) started to erode badly in the 1980s.
This is obvious?
Please explain and provide examples of this supposed "erosion" of the "equal opportunity."
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 8, 2014 - 10:00pm PT
|
Please explain and provide examples of this supposed "erosion" of the "equal opportunity."
What are you a nitwit, or have you been unaware of the news for the last 30 years?
I gotta choice here, post an answer to you, or go play badminton with my 12 year old. So, one example:
How about the % of income the very rich pay compared to average people (i.e. progressive taxation)? Our current situation is obscene.
Screw the minimum wage, just get the rich to pay a larger share of society's burden and use it for the types of things that increase economic opportunity (like making a university education more achievable for more people - help people better themselves).
And please don't try the "don't tax the rich or they won't create jobs" tripe. If you believe that dog crap you're even more hopeless than you've sounded so far.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Typically I won't bother with a post as flagrantly insulting as yours. "Nitwit?" Are you kidding? And you go on and on, so, really, you should have gone to play with your kid instead.
However, because you try to float the same, old, liberal crap as fact; and because you then even treat your own personal interpretation of the "facts" as "obvious," it's worth a bit of effort to dismantle both the "facts" and your interpretation of them.
How about the % of income the very rich pay compared to average people (i.e. progressive taxation)? Our current situation is obscene.
What is obscene about it? Let's look at the facts... or, at least, let's look at some analysis that SHOULD help you to realize that things are not as "obvious" as you make them out to be (hence, no call for "nitwit" sorts of statements).
"Here's an amazing statistic that Piketty chooses to ignore. When the highest income tax rate was 70 percent in the 1970s, the richest 1 percent paid about 19 percent of all federal income taxes.
"But with a rate of 35 percent on the rich in 2011, the rich paid close to 38 percent of all income taxes. The rich always find ways around high income taxes" (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/258320181.html);.
Hmmm... so, in the 80s and following, the percentage of income paid by the "rich" went from 70% to 35% (seemingly supporting your claim), however, FAR from being an "obscene" change, the total AMOUNT the "rich" paid in taxes skyrocketed. Their percentage of "income" (which at all tax brackets is a manipulated figure) was cut in half, but their total contribution went up 38 TIMES!
Okay, so let's look at what actually happened in the 80s and since:
"The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986" (http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/);.
So, according to this (credibly reported) article, the total annual taxes paid by the wealthy have increased dramatically since 1986.
This is FAR from me making some lame case to "not tax the rich!" I'm no trickle-down economist! But the burden is on YOU to demonstrate how the system has become LESS "progressive" since the 80s. You could argue that the percentage-of-income-taxed should NOT have been dropped from 70% to 35% in the 70s (which was not your earlier claim, btw). But what that idea would be missing is that many LOOPHOLES have been closed along with the reduction in percentage, which is a large part of why the "rich" are paying more REAL DOLLARS than ever before. The actual facts demonstrate that the system has not become "less progressive" in the 80s and following.
Then there are the interpretations themselves. Just seeing graphs and hearing percentages and whole numbers does not tell the whole story. Here the sword cuts both ways!
From the same article quoted above: "The top 10% of taxpayers take home 45% of the nation's income, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. Moreover, they seem to be getting richer all the time. 'The vast majority of income gains have gone to the people at the top,' he [McIntyre] said."
THIS is what pisses people off. Adjusted for inflation, the average WAGE of the 90% has gone down in the past several decades, while it has gone UP for the top 10%.
But, notice, you don't solve THAT problem by TAXING! The WAGE itself is not something that gets fixed by TAXATION! I now turn to your next point, as it fits perfectly here....
Screw the minimum wage, just get the rich to pay a larger share of society's burden and use it for the types of things that increase economic opportunity (like making a university education more achievable for more people - help people better themselves).
What? Are you a nitwit??? (LOL... just couldn't help the irony here. I don't really mean it.)
Seriously, though, you've just said that we should TAX the rich more, and you've said that they have been getting an unfair TAXATION break since the 80s. But the data doesn't bear THAT out. What the data DOES show is that the very thing you say you DON'T care about is the VERY place where the disparity between the "rich" and the "poor" has become the greatest! So, in point of fact, you have what SHOULD be done to be "fair" turned on its head.
And I'M the "nitwit" for not thinking that your perspective is just OBVIOUSLY right!
Seriously, man, save your insults and try to argue systematically. This data is not trivial to parse out, and INTERPRETING it is even tougher. The mere fact that somebody doesn't see the "facts" as you do, nor INTERPRET the data as you do, does not make them a nitwit!
If anything, the data I see seems to indicate that further TAXING the rich is not the solution to anything. Their tax burden (both as a percentage and in terms of real dollars) has steadily INCREASED in the past few decades! But what has ALSO increased is their WAGES, while the WAGES of the other 90% have stagnated or decreased!
So, rather than to NOT CARE about a minimum wage increase, you SHOULD (by your own lights) be advocating for that very thing, while advocating for legislation to CAP top-end wages (however that might be done, and with whatever unknown implications that might have).
But, now, why would you WANT to do the second part of that? I mean, the more the wealthy earn, the MORE taxes they pay (as their percentage tax-of-income has increased over the past few decades (since the BIG decline in percentage of the 70s)). And even if you tax them more, as I've noted above, that mere fact does not increase WAGES for the other 90%, which is where the real disparity lies. If you want more "equality," then figure out a way to increase WAGES for the 90%. Of course, you don't increase WAGES by taxation.
And please don't try the "don't tax the rich or they won't create jobs" tripe. If you believe that dog crap you're even more hopeless than you've sounded so far.
More insults, but barking up the wrong tree. I'm no trickle-down economist.
I do, however, believe that the thing that pisses the most people off (yourself included, I'll wager) is NOT something that can in principle be addressed by more taxation.
Rather than calling me a nitwit, perhaps you should look in the mirror and ask yourself WHY, EXACTLY, you are so pissed off, and IMAGINE that not all intelligent people see the data the way you do. Then, if you can get over that hump, you might consider what policies would actually DIRECTLY touch the things that piss you off.
You have not made anything approaching a case that just taxing the "rich" more will solve anything that bothers you. And, again, refer back to the FACT that while the percentage-of-income-taxed was reduced by half, the REAL DOLLARS paid very quickly went up 38 TIMES!
The biggest problem your sort of "economist" faces is that you are mentally tied to just "hammering the rich" with more INCOME taxes; yet INCOME taxes are about the stupidest way to generate tax revenue! "Income" is a moving target (and always will be), and taxing income (to the extent you can even do it) is regressive at all levels. What you WANT are SALES taxes, particularly luxury taxes.
The guy that can buy a $1 million yacht can also afford to pay a 50% luxury tax when he buys it; and that luxury tax isn't going to keep him from buying it.
You want a healthy economy? Then you want sales taxes rather than income taxes. And if you insist on an income tax, make it a flat tax with NO deductions or exemptions.
Well, enough rambling from a nitwit.
Carry on....
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2014 - 12:11am PT
|
I read part of your reply (after a vigorous badminton game).
It's way too long for the internet.
First, you mistake "intolerant" for "pissed off." I'm the former and not at all the latter. After all, I'm comfortably upper middle class, a business owner and debt free. What the hell would I be pissed at?
Second, any time FACT is capitalized, I worry that the capitals substitute for thought.
Third, I don't disagree about a sales tax being a different good solution (and a sales tax might also have added benefits, like reducing what might be considered wasteful/unenvironmental consumption). But my example (that's what you asked for) wasn't about our whole tax system, it was about one tax issue. I stand by what I said.
Don't type so much. You're already hijacking the thread, which was originally about a bad Supreme Court decision.
I gotta go clip my toenails next.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
With a sales tax EVERYONE pays including the drug dealers and other reprobateste
Ever heard of the "black market"?
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
Then they steal it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Glad you're doing so well. So, it sounds like you should be volunteering to have your own tax rate doubled to "save" the "poor" people that just can't make it on this terribly unlevel playing field. Given the sounds of your success, I'm sure that you're not contributing your "fair share!"
And, BTW, I'm not the one the initiated this tangent. I merely responded to the shifting tide.
Regarding length of post, oh well. "An accusation can be made on a bumper sticker, while the defense of it can take a book."
ST is the home of posts that amount to drive-by shootings. And we elect presidents on the basis of sound bites. I try to do better.
You asked, and I answered.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2014 - 12:42am PT
|
Crap, now I've got a bleeding toe.
Look, I didn't read all of your supposed "statistics," and I'm not going to. If the point of your post is that the rich aren't getting richer then you're flat full of it.
Continuing with my example, the rich should bear more of the burden (as they did historically). And yes, there are lots of ways to do that.
The example was about moving our society back toward a level playing field.
But not for hand-outs (in a way a minimum wage is a hand-out).
There are many ways to use a larger contribution from the rich. The example I used above was helping people improve themselves through education (my family was dead broke when I graduated high school and I made it through both university and law school using grants and a reasonable, eventually repayable, number of loans - and as a direct result I've paid as much in taxes during some single years as all that education cost in the first place).
Or pay down our national debt, or work on our national infrastructure (roads, bridges, or, God forbid, better energy sources).
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
I gotta go clip my toenails next.
Wash your hands before milk and cookies.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2014 - 12:55am PT
|
Glad you're doing so well. So, it sounds like you should be volunteering to have your own tax rate doubled to "save" the "poor" people that just can't make it on this terribly unlevel playing field.
Thank you. I didn't say anything about doubling. And yes, I've been known to whine loudly when I write huge checks to pay taxes (even though I'm posting on the internet, I am human).
I do recognize though that our government - using in part the taxes I pay - does some things right (environmental and wilderness protection, especially wilderness protection; a sound military that is under civilian control; and yes, helping people improve themselves through education are examples of what our government does and/or can do right). I also don't expect inhuman perfection from that government; waste and some corruption will always exist in any such human organization.
In short, I mostly like what our government(s) do for us.
And yes, I would volunteer to have my taxes raised, along with others in my bracket, yes, absolutely.
And, BTW, I'm not the one the initiated this tangent. I merely responded to the shifting tide.
OK, I made the mistake of going climbing for two days and I lost track of who was saying what. You obviously (there's that word again) responded to the tangent with too much tripe.
And we elect presidents on the basis of sound bites. I try to do better.
We agree on something! Too bad, huh? Presidents elected using the same methods used to sell dish soaps and new cars.
Now, can we get back to the stupidity of the Supreme Court's recent decision?
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
Now, can we get back to the stupidity of the Supreme Court's recent decision?
If you washed your hands.
|
|
mtnyoung
Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2014 - 01:11am PT
|
I did.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!